The Supreme Court upheld the disqualification of a councillor for suppressing her Section 138 NI Act conviction in her nomination affidavit. The Court ruled that concealment of criminal records violates voters’ right to informed choice and voids election results.
The Supreme Court set aside lower court decrees, holding that an unregistered “Palupatti” (family partition memo) is admissible for the collateral purpose of proving severance of joint family status and separate possession. This ruling confirms that a family arrangement, when corroborated by conduct and revenue records, validates the disruption of joint ownership.
The ITAT Mumbai affirmed that when a taxpayer’s sales and stock levels are accepted, the entire value of alleged bogus purchases cannot be disallowed. Following judicial consistency in cases involving the Bhanwarlal Jain Group, the Tribunal restricted the addition to only 3% of the disputed purchase value, representing the estimated profit element.
The ITAT Bangalore clarified that the presence of nominal and associate members does not automatically disqualify a cooperative society registered under the KCS Act from claiming Section 80P deduction. The case was remanded for the AO to verify if associate members complied with the 15% statutory ceiling under the KCS Act, upholding the principle that the AO cannot question the validity of the society’s registration itself.
The issue was whether a large cash holding was unexplained money under Section 69A post-demonetization. The ITAT ruled in favor of the assessee, accepting that the cash originated from earlier, disclosed bank withdrawals. Key Takeaway: The burden of proof to disprove the source from prior withdrawals rests with the Department; mere suspicion isn’t enough for an addition.
ITAT Mumbai allowed deduction of interest expenditure, emphasizing that as long as there is a nexus between the borrowing and the income earned, deduction cannot be denied. Disallowance based on investment in shares was found unjustified.
ITAT Bangalore ruled that first proviso to Section 50C(1) is curative and retrospective, applying from A.Y. 2003-04. This allows taxpayer to compute capital gains based on stamp duty value prevailing on earlier MOU date (agreement date) instead of later, higher registration value, since part consideration was paid before registration.
ITAT Chennai upheld that immovable property transfers within family through registered settlement deeds are exempt under Section 56(2)(x). The AO’s view that such transfers were non-bona-fide was rejected.
The issue was whether, for Section 50C purposes, the stamp duty value should be taken on the date of the agreement (MOU) or the date of registration. The Karnataka High Court ruled the date of the agreement must be adopted when part of the consideration was paid via banking channel. Key Takeaway: The second proviso to Section 50C(1) is mandatory and allows the use of the lower stamp value prevailing on the agreement date if banking payment is made before registration.
NCLT Mumbai held that non-payment of part of debt when it becomes due and payable amounts to default. Thus, application u/s. 7 of Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code [IBC] duly admitted since there exists financial debt, exceeding threshold limit, and the same is in default.
